If You Haven't Yet Filled Out The Census ...

That census form still sitting there, is it? Wondering how best to fill it out? Well, as luck would have it, a member of the legal profession has kindly e-mailed your humble host with a few hints and tips.

I thought it rude not to share.

Many people I know have asked me for a view of the census, given its entirely intrusive nature, and whether they should answer the questions in it.

The Census is authorised by the Census Act 1920.

The legal requirement is that orders and regulations be made in respect of each census that is required.

These are the Census (England and Wales) Order 2009 and the Census (England) Regulations 2010. (As you will appreciate I live in England).

As far as I am able to ascertain the types and classes of information that may be requested have not been altered from the original Census Act 1920, save for the Census (Amendment) Act 2000 which added Religion, but which also provided that no penalty can arise for a refusal to answer questions about a person’s religion.

Under the Census Act 1920 the Matters In Respect of Which Particulars May Be Required, and in respect of which answers must be given on pain of a fine, are as follows:

1. Names, sex, age.
2. Occupation, profession, trade or employment.
3. Nationality, birthplace, race, language.
4. Place of abode and character of dwelling.
5. Condition as to marriage or civil partnership , relation to head of family, issue born in marriage.
[5A] Religion.
6. Any other matters with respect to which it is desirable to obtain statistical information with a view to ascertaining the social or civil condition of the population.

One could legitimately argue, in my view, that the particulars therefore required are as follows, as an example:

Q: What is your name? Particulars: Your Name
Q: What is your occupation, profession, trade or employment? Particulars: Job Title.
Etc.

That is a legitimate response and in line with the legislation as far as I am concerned but, as so many Acts of Parliament do, there is a catch all – and this is clause 6.

So, 1-5 are clear. 6 is not. There is no definition or interpretation in the Act, or in any later legislation (primary or secondary) or case law that I can find (and I have looked), of what “social or civil condition” means. “Desirable” of course they think means desirable to the powers that be and essentially clause 6 might be seen as giving the government the right to ask anything it damn well pleases on pain of a fine (but that arguably cannot be the case under the sui generis principle, particularly in an Act that prescribes only limited matters as being permitted subjects of the requirement for particulars). Further, it is at least arguable that what is desirable is tested on an objective basis and not on the basis of the subjective power grabbing masturbatory fantasies of our suited parasitic millionaire politicians. But, best not to forget that the fine on level 3 of the standard scale (£1000) applies to each offence - and each question refused, unanswered, or answered falsely, is a separate offence.

But, stretching the matter from particulars as set out in the Census Act 1920 to any damn question they like about:

- your central heating;
- whether you have a mortgage;
- whether you rent;
- whether you own property outright;
- whether you stay at another address for more than 30 days each year;
- whether you live somewhere else during term time if you are at school;
- if you don’t have a job when you last worked;
- whether you are looking for work;
- whether you would have been able to start a new job within 2 weeks if one had been available in the last week;
- whether you have ever worked;
- whether you are employed;
- your full job title;
- details of what you do in your job;
- whether you supervised other employees;
- your employer’s main business activity;
- your employer’s business address;
- how you travel to work;
- how many hours a week you work;
- which visitors are with you on census night and their own personal address details;
- whether you address is armed forces, student digs, holiday home, parents address, etc;
- whether you are a carer for anyone and how much time you spend doing this; - how good your health is;
- how long you intend to stay in the UK;
- who your landlord is;
- how many cars or vans you own;
- what your address was one year ago;
- what passports you hold;
- whether your day to day activities are limited because of a health problem;
- what qualifications you have;

... is just a monumental piss take.

The full list of matters to which you MUST respond, and aptly evidencing prodnose, intrusive, and highly unnecessary authoritarianism, can be found on the relevant website which is, if you can be bothered, here.

I think, given that the populations’ social or civil condition was previously ascertainable by many fewer and a lot less intrusive questions, and that the Census Act 1920 does indeed prescribe limited matters upon which you can be forced to provide information, that I will write on all of the above – “Not necessary to ascertain the social or civil condition of the population”.

In respect of any question about a third party, (and some might, as I will, include their own children and spouse/partner in this), I will answer that “I am not authorised by any third party to provide any of their personal details, (and such statement is not to be taken that there are any third parties present on census night)”.

Bear in mind that the government states that the reason for the census is this:

"The information collected on the questionnaires is used to help government and local authorities plan the services and resources people need, such as transport, housing, healthcare and education. The amount of money your council has to spend on these important services is based on population statistics from the census. That is why it is so important that everyone takes part."

That is not a permissible objective under the Census Act 1920 as far as I can see – the purpose of the Census in the Act is to ascertain the social and civil condition of the population. It is not so that your local authority knows how much to spend on services. One might argue that they amount to the same thing, but in reality they do not. If the objective was to plan local services then the legislation would say so.

We are also not told that the government has already signed an agreement to pass ALL of your answers to the EU, and the US has claimed that ALL census answers must be provided to it under its Patriot Act. Nice to know that our US cousins still view us all as potential terrorists. You also have no idea where this information will end up. It will be sold, provided to private corporations here and abroad, and in essence although the census forms don’t say so, provision of the information requested constitutes your agreement to all of this. Of course it will also be left on a train somewhere by someone who earns more than you and whose pension you will pay for even though you will have to work until you drop dead at your desk.

Then, of course, there is Article 8 relating to your Human Right to Respect for Private and Family Life. It is not disputed that this right applies to personal information.

The Article says:

"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Ok so we’re looking at the economic well-being of the country. The suggestion that knowing how many cars I have, and most of the other guff, is vital to the economic well-being of the country is laughable. I also therefore intend to write across all of the above questions that it breaches my Article 8 rights.

They will get my name, address, what type of property I live in, sex, age, job, nationality, marital status, (non-bastard) childrens’ names (maybe), maybe who is the head of the family (my wife, natch), and NOTHING else.

A follow-up e-mail confirmed that his form was indeed returned in the manner described above. And for the religion question? Smoker, naturally.

The State Of Civil Liberties In Modern Britain

After only a tiny bit of begging, I was invited up to the HQ of Big Brother Watch on Wednesday evening for the official launch of their new book, The state of civil liberties in modern Britain. Having now finished all 300 pages, I can report that it's a right scary read.

Consisting of 27 essays from an impressive line-up of authors - including MPs, respected journalists and barristers - the book is an eminently readable catalogue of the destruction of our freedoms and liberties in all spheres of life which, when put together in one tome like this, paints an appallingly oppressive picture of Britain today.

Readers of this blog will be most interested in the contributions of Brian Monteith, author of The Bully State featured in the right sidebar (which is where the BBW book is headed once I can remember how to do it), along with those of Philip Johnston, Josie Appleton, and Mark Littlewood. All chapters, however, are illuminating in their description of runaway state control and incessant interference in our everyday lives by local, national, and supra-national politicians.

Depressing though this publication is, departing BBW co-founder Alex Deane (left) should be congratulated for compiling a comprehensive account of how the state has shamefully abused its authority and systematically derogated the lives of all UK citizens by way of legislation, opprobium, surveillance, denormalisation and a total destruction of personal responsibility and self-reliance. The book lays down a marker by which to measure the future progress - or lack thereof - towards a respect for personal liberties previously believed to be enshrined in seminal laws passed by historic politicians who - unlike the current hideous crop - cared for the public's freedom over and above their own self-importance.

This contrast between a state which takes our civil liberties into account and the hideous mutation of governance we now suffer on a daily basis is starkly illustrated in the culmination of Leo McKinstry's chapter. In articulating the abject nature of authoritarian modern government, he points to a sadly prophetic quotation by Liberal PM, Lord Rosebery, delivered in 1908.

The modern cry is, 'Let the Government have a finger in every pie, probing, propping, disturbing. Every day the area of initiative is being narrowed, every day the standing ground for self-reliance is being undermined; every day the public infringes - with the best intentions no doubt - on the individual. The nation is being taken into custody by the state.'

We are, indeed, now presumed to need guarding and cocooning from our own self-determination - whether we like it or not - by those we elect to serve, rather than master, us. It's high time such an invasive condescending attitude was challenged, so all credit to Alex and BBW for doing exactly that.

The book is available here for less than the price of a couple of pints of Guinness. I can heartily recommend its bite-sized format for the train, bath, bog, or wherever else you choose to do your reading.

Don't Act So Surprised, Warsi

Seriously, Baroness Warsi, you've got some nerve.

Prejudice against Muslims has "passed the dinner-table test" and become socially acceptable in the UK, a senior Conservative is to say.

Baroness Warsi will say anti-Muslim prejudice is now seen by many Britons as normal and uncontroversial, and she will use her position to fight an "ongoing battle against bigotry".

So then, what else do you think is going to happen when you scare a country witless?

In the last decade, we have been subjected to hysterical 'security measures', from stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act to body scanners at airports. We've seen the abandonment of historical liberties such as habeas corpus by way of detention without charge and control orders, not to mention RIPA. As a result, institutions are so spooked by it all that nail clippers are confiscated from hand luggage and you can't now even take a fork into the Natural History Museum to eat your lunch with.

All this - we are told - because the likelihood of a terrorist attack is "highly likely".

And you wonder why the public are prejudiced against a religion which contains some who have prompted the government to take away our freedoms, thereby hugely inconveniencing our way of life on a daily basis?

"It's not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of 'moderate' Muslims leads; in the factory, where they've just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: 'Not to worry, he's only fairly Muslim'," she will say.

"In the school, the kids say: 'The family next door are Muslim but they're not too bad'.

Well, Warsi, if you want to see such attitudes evaporate, perhaps government could take the lead by putting a stop to the perpetual scaremongery, and returning the civil liberties which over-reactive politicians have stripped away.

Ready when you are, dear.

When 'Freedom' Doesn't Mean Free

Not without conditions, anyway, according to Transport for London.

Alex Deane explains more here.

Fingerprinting And Kids? Perfectly Natural

Iain Dale was shocked a few months ago. Appalled, so he was, that fingerprinting of kids was occurring at state schools as a way of registering lunch payments.

Fingerprinting children is just plain wrong. Sorry, but it just is. No matter how many assurances that are given, you're still trusting the state to look after the most personal of information.

This is true.

However, it's not an isolated practice anymore, nor is it even small-scale. In October, we had a tour round the prospective secondary school of one of the little Ps (the girl). Our guide was a very bouncy year 8 kid who was subdued when showing us the science labs, but incredibly enthusiastic when explaining the lunch money machine.

Bouncy boy enthused, "It's really good! You just put your finger here and put your money in. It's well mega! But ...", he tailed off as his enthusiasm waned, "... you can use a card instead 'cos some people don't like using fingerprints", said he with an almost disappointed shrug.

A mum who was on the same tour appeared crestfallen and exasperated, "Why on earth would anyone not like that?", she gasped with a Helen Worth-style astonished look on her face as she glanced down at her kids whilst shaking her head in genuine disbelief.

After all, the recording of personal information is perfectly normal now, isn't it?

Child's play, even.

Have lots of fun experimenting with this Fingerprints kit! Keep your blast lab safe from intruders by learning how to search, lift and record fingerprints!

If you listen very carefully, you may just be able to hear Alex Deane's head pop.

Well, That's Settled Then

Yesterday's rundown of responses in relation to dentist enrolment forms showed a certain amount of confusion on the part of dentists and their professional bodies. However, there was one reply I hadn't received at time of writing, that being in response to a letter sent to Health Secretary Andrew Lansley's office.

In timely fashion, it materialised today. And far from being the usual evasive, wishy-washy affair, I think this could be called an unequivocal stance (emphases mine).

Dear Mr Puddlecote,

Thank you for your email of 1 November to the Department of Health about dentistry and information relating to the patient’s tobacco consumption and weekly unitary alcohol intake. I have been asked to reply.

It is not a mandatory requirement, but good practice, for dentists to collect information on patients’ tobacco consumption and alcohol intake. The dentist will take no further action where the patient declines.

The Department is not aware of anyone being refused NHS dental treatment on the basis of not providing information on tobacco consumption and alcohol intake, and it would strongly urge anyone who is being refused dental treatment to complain to their local primary care trust.

I hope you find this reply helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Gatty
Customer Service Centre

Indeed it is helpful, Mr Gatty. It proves categorically that my recent Dental Pricktitioner correspondent is not only wrong, but also acting in contravention of DH guidelines as well as, possibly, breaking codes of conduct pertaining to his registration as a dentist.

I suggest it might be worth cutting out and keeping those words for future reference. Such indisputable advice from an impeccable authority is certain to instantly silence even the most intimidatory and stubborn dental jobsworth.

If you're reading this, Snakey, you may find it fun to revisit the practice who refused to enrol you and smugly demand that they do so. Although, considering the potentially painful nature of backlash from a chastened dentist, perhaps a complaint would be less risky.

Dentists Have No Right To Demand Personal Information, After All

Following my recent piece about dentist enrolment forms - and prompted specifically by the fact that commenters told of being denied treatment for wishing to keep personal details, err, personal - I was intrigued as to policy in this area of NHS care, so made a few enquiries.

The reply to my FOI request on the matter popped up in my inbox yesterday, the relevant highlights being (emphasis mine):

[What is the] official Department of Health guidance to dentists on the procedure for dealing with patients who refuse, or are unwilling to divulge, details of their tobacco consumption and/or weekly alcohol unitary intake?

The Department has not issued any guidance. As stated above, it is not a mandatory requirement but good practice for dentists to collect information on patients’ tobacco consumption and alcohol intake. The dentist will take no further action where the patient declines.

By 'no further action', one assumes that dentists are supposed to respect the patient's decision and carry on regardless.

Which wasn't the experience of Snakey in the comments last month.

I restated that I did not wish to fill the form in. After I had sat down one of the receptionists went off to tell my dentist about my lack of form filling obedience, like the good little drone she was. When she came back she imperiously demanded that I step towards the reception desk. She then told me that my dentist would not treat me unless I filled the form in. I walked out.

I now have no dentist as I still refuse to fill in the form. I don't actually drink but that's beside the point. They have no right to refuse me treatment just because I won't go along with their little game.

Indeed, so why are dentists under the impression that such info is to be treated as mandatory despite the DH saying that it isn't?

The FOI reply pointed to this document [pdf], issued to all dentists last year, which contains chapters on 'Stop smoking guidance' (p.38) and 'Alcohol misuse support' (p.40-41). In the case of smoking, the advice to dentists is:

• All patients should have their smoking status (current, ex-, never smoked) established and checked at regular intervals. This information should be recorded in the patient’s clinical notes.
• All smokers and those chewing tobacco should be advised of the value of stopping and the risks to their health of continuing. The advice should be clear, firm and personalised. It is essential that the message to all smokers is complete cessation
• All smokers should be advised on the value of attending their local NHS Stop Smoking Services for specialised help in stopping. Smokers who are interested and motivated to stop should be referred to these services.

Interestingly, however, there is no mention at all of cataloguing the alcohol intake of dental patients, just the usual rehashing of recommended units which, as we know, are about as scientific as 'think-of-a-number-and-halve-it'.

'Tis true, then. There is nothing in DH guidance that demands dentists take such info before affording treatment. Especially in the case of alcohol where they aren't even advised to record it in the first place.

And nowhere is it even hinted that treatment should be denied entirely.

The British Dental Health Foundation, however, replied to my query on the subject with an attempted explanation as to why dentists do so, albeit one which doesn't hold much water.

If the dentist is unable to access the information he may feel necessary to maintain your oral health and dental care he could decide that he would therefore be unable to treat you.

A trifle melodramatic, doncha think? Considering that the BDHF point out that the data is used by dentists to "look out for any signs for early detection" of oral cancer, one presumes they could check for those signs equally well, with or without knowing the patient's drinking and smoking habits, simply by assuming the worst. Especially since, as VGIF highlighted, oral cancer is a rare occurrence anyway.

A bigger clue presented itself in a reply from a representative of the Dental Professionals Association (the 'sniffy' one), though. Targets.

Dentists have had a number of performance indicators added to their contracts, including smoking cessation targets. We know that manipulation of the contract in this way does give rise to odd side-effects however we have not come across the problem you describe.

Which makes me rather more of an expert on patients being denied treatment than a body employed in the industry itself. Three commenters here pointed to either being refused or being effectively bullied (my experience), yet the DPA have never heard of such a thing. How odd.

In summation, while it is clear that NHS dentists are refusing treatment for patient non-declaration of smoking status and alcohol unitary intake, they aren't mandated to do so under current DH guidelines.

I'll leave the last word on this to Sam Duncan who articulated my thoughts perfectly in the comments to an article here last week.

Sure, if I come along to you proposing a commercial transaction and you don't like the colour of my money you can tell me to sod off for no other reason. It's a fundamental principle of the free market - of freedom - and, as we know, one that's under threat from so-called “rights” that are nothing of the sort.

But if you lay claim to my money, taken from me under threat of force on the pretext that you're providing a vital public service, then the tables are turned, matey. You have a duty to do the job, because I (apparently) have a right to it, and tough luck if I'm a bit uppity and won't answer your irrelevant questions.

Quite.

Something to bear in mind next time an NHS dentist - who you are paying via taxation - threatens a refusal to perform his part of the contract simply because you'd prefer to keep your lifestyle choices private.

Fillings And Forms

Alex Deane at Big Brother Watch shares an anecdote with us from a recent visit to his dentist.

Dentist: we haven’t got details of your alcohol intake.

Me: no, you haven’t.

Dentist: well, there’s a health form - we’ve got to have it!

Me: no, you don’t.

Dentist: well, what am I supposed to put in this space, then?

Me: you can put that I said it’s none of your business.

Dentist: Alex, you don’t seem to understand – this is to guard against oral cancer.

Nought to cancer in four questions!! Talk about bringing out the big guns. Needless to say, the exchange ended:

Me: I’ll take my chances

Dentist: (total disbelief) So I’ve got to put that you won’t tell me?

Me: Yup.

Good on ya', sunbeam.

I had a similar experience a couple of months ago when moving to a different dental practice and signing in for a check up**. In this case, I was given the form to fill in myself. I completed it but left the question on 'alcohol units per week' blank, assuming that it was optional. Having handed it to the receptionist and reseated myself to continue reading a riveting copy of OK magazine (yes, it was the only *cough* literature available, and yes, I was being sarcy), she called me back to point out that I had not answered all the questions.

"Oh, I didn't think that one was compulsory", said I, politely, to which she countered that she couldn't register me at the practice unless it was filled in. I just took the pen, placed a big fat zero in the box, handed it to her with a smile, and sat down again. The look I received was a mixture of disdain and anger. She knew the answer was untrue but - short of accusing me of being a liar in public - there was nothing she could do about it.

Sorry, but this information is none of a dentist's business. When he sees me every six months, will his treatment change dependent on what figure is declared on that form? Of course not. If he sees signs of oral cancer, he will act upon them, just as he would with a teetotaller. What, with reference to Alex's example, can a dentist possibly do to 'guard against' such an occurrence?

Not a lot, I'd venture. So there are no compelling benefits for the patient in answering that question.

There is, however, much potential for abuse of that data, especially in these times of nannying puritanism. Once your intake is logged, it opens up an avenue for the NHS to badger you if they don't like what they see. If the dentist's system is in any way linked up to the Summary Care Records database (which the Tories promised to scrap ... but didn't) - and I'm sure it probably is - the mailshot scaremongery and nagging will be just around the corner.

And, looking to the future because it has certainly been mumbled a few times by certain health obsessives, how'd you like the idea of being flagged as a drinker and being charged for - or even denied - treatment due to your self-proclaimed unitary intake?

No, the best course of action is to either lie or, if possible, tell them to stick their question where the sun don't shine as Alex has done. Safer by far, doncha think?

** I know you're curious ... one filling, I was a good boy and didn't cry, so took one of the lollipops on the way out. A green one, tasted a bit appley.

UPDATE: Thanks to a commenter who pointed out why dentists should definitely not be trusted with information which could be used to deny treatment.

A Libertarian Case For CCTV

I expect I'll have verbal rocks hurled at me for this, but the past week has convinced me that our esteemed blog mascot, Philip Davies, is correct - there is a solid libertarian case to be made for CCTV.

Oh, lay off, we haven't started yet! Hear me out, can ya?

Davies argued, at the IEA Voices of Freedom event back in June (reprised at the Tory fringe), that a variety of surveillance tools enhanced liberty rather than detracted from it. Now, I can't subscribe to his defence of DNA swabs for the innocent or widespread ANPR, but on CCTV I have been swayed ...

... albeit not unreservedly.

On Friday, two groups of thugs were sentenced. You will have, no doubt, seen the case of three 'professionals' who beat up a guy on a train journey out of London. You couldn't miss it considering the Daily Mail's screaming it from the rooftops, as well as being the headline story on that evening's ITN London news.

The Mail called it a 'sickening' attack following a simple request; that it was made worse by the post-assault celebrations; and highlighted that the thugs only received suspended sentences for stamping on someone's head. They were correct to be angry on all three counts.

But you may have missed a separate judgment on the same day, again involving three thugs; again instigated by an understandable request; again captured on CCTV; again comprising a foot to the head; and again greeted with a celebratory joke. Fortunately, this case saw the scum jailed for a total of 46 years.

Perhaps it was the poor sentence in the former case that got the Mail hot under the collar, but the latter ended in the death of an IT worker on Halloween last year yet received comparatively little coverage. The CCTV footage of the attack can be viewed here.

Both cases are hideous. Both cases were also brought to a successful prosecution, arguably, thanks to court submission of CCTV footage.

Watch either of those clips and tell me you wouldn't have convicted if you were on the jury. Then ask yourself if the evidence would have been quite so compelling if it were merely a verbal duel between barristers, coupled with testimony which would have come down to a simple 'do I believe the accused or the prosecution?'. Their word against the other's.

CCTV has rendered all such confusing factors obsolete. The jury could barely have a better view of events if they had been there at the time. So, therefore, it must be an incontrovertible 'good thing', yes?

Well, not quite.

Because both cases relied on footage captured by private enterprises, using unmanned equipment. The former was accessed from the ubiquitous train carriage cameras, after the victim reported his assault. Likewise, the crucial evidence in the murder case was not the monitored and manoeuvrable police CCTV, but that from a snooker club's static and unmanned front door camera.

I'm sure there may well be a few times that constantly monitored and manoeuvrable CCTV has effected a fast response to crime, but their being monitored, and manoeuvrable, isn't a deterrent (it was in operation during the murder), and all too often leads to mission creep such as bullying the public.

The problem is not CCTV cameras themselves, but the people who abuse us all by operating them in a disproportionate manner. There is little observable evidence that they deter, but plenty that they oppress and reduce our sense of freedom as a result of their over-zealous application.

Fill the country up with the bloody things as far as I'm concerned, but the footage should only be accessed when a crime has been reported/identified and evidence/action is subsequently required. If, as Philip Davies asserts, they are to be used as a tool for liberty, then human misuse must be eradicated and they must never, ever, be employed to actively seek out inconsequential misdemeanours.

Human nature dicates that CCTV has little use as a deterrent for we forget they are there (Channel 4's Big Brother worked on that very concept), but they do have their place in making us all more free by ensuring that those who commit crimes are rightly taken out of the equation.

Though I'm sure some may disagree.

The Frogs Are Starting To Simmer In 'The Land Of The Free'

Mrs P has put her foot down with a firm hand, so I'll be taking a few days off before the little Ps go back to the state indoctrination hub school. A tour of Lord's, jaunt to the beach, hours of fun playing 'where the fuck have they run off to now?' in several tourist-packed museums, that sort of thing. As such, if tumbleweed begins to drift around here in the coming week, don't be too surprised.

Afore that, though, there's just time for a quick look at what might be coming our way soon, courtesy of our government's idols over the Atlantic.

As we often observe on these pages, however absurd America gets, it's only a matter of time before illiberal ideas, bans, and downright lunacy begin to be replicated over here.

And we should be quite worried at the moment as yank authoritarians are busy attacking their own constitution - which most Americans presumed to be set in stone for an eternity - with a carbide-tipped pickaxe. The Fourth Amendment in particular.

As some bloggers have spotted this week, for example, US authorities haven't waited for the dust to settle on the use of body scanning devices at airports before rolling out the mobile, in-your-face-on-the-street version.

The Z Backscatter Vans, or ZBVs, as the company calls them, bounce a narrow stream of x-rays off and through nearby objects, and read which ones come back. Absorbed rays indicate dense material such as steel. Scattered rays indicate less-dense objects that can include explosives, drugs, or human bodies. That capability makes them powerful tools for security, law enforcement, and border control.

In a country which has only ever suffered one terrist atrocity on its own soil (IIRC), it would seem a trifle paranoid to unleash 500 of these things, even though the manufacturer publicity makes very clear their necessity for the public good.

But is it really in the wider interest of Americans?

But EPIC’s Rotenberg says that the scans, like those in the airport, potentially violate the fourth amendment. “Without a warrant, the government doesn’t have a right to peer beneath your clothes without probable cause,” he says. Even airport scans are typically used only as a secondary security measure, he points out. “If the scans can only be used in exceptional cases in airports, the idea that they can be used routinely on city streets is a very hard argument to make.”

Of course, as BBW has consistently emphasised, it's not necessarily the equipment which is the problem, but the very human operators and the potential for mission creep.

The same 'for your protection' angle is also being wheeled out to defend a US court's decision to allow state interference on private property.

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.

One of the judges did vainly object, but his remarks bely a sense of desperation.

"1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last," [Chief Judge Kozinski] lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell's totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: "Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania."

Meanwhile, elsewhere in 'the land of the free', schools are queueing up to tag and monitor their students. Starting with pre-schoolers ...

RICHMOND, Calif.—California officials are outfitting preschoolers in Contra Costa County with tracking devices they say will save staff time and money. The system was introduced Tuesday. When at the school, students will wear a jersey that has a small radio frequency tag. The tag will send signals to sensors that help track children's whereabouts, attendance and even whether they've eaten or not.

... before moving on to those a little older [YouTube].

Lastly, the Washington Examiner reports on why yanks shouldn't consider themselves safe from the ever-expanding state while acting perfectly legally on their own property.

[...] to arrest someone who is unmistakably on their own property, and doing nothing remotely illegal, is an abuse of power pure and simple. Even if it were true that Gibson was endangering herself by witnessing the traffic stop from the confines of her front porch, how could that possibly be construed as “resisting arrest” or “obstructing the police” without eviscerating everything that the concept of private property (not to mention plain old individual rights) stands for? Taking such a risk is not illegal. Doing it while occupying one’s homestead should be recognized as unassailably within one’s rights.

Couldn't happen here? Confident? Have you seen the crazy shit our easily gulled parliament has passed before?

Strap yourselves in, boys and girls. We could be in for a long and bumpy ride.

Splutter!

Via Big Brother Watch.

Our record was overall a terrific one. Look at what we did. [...] the greatest advances in civil liberties of any post-war government [...]

Jack Straw

OK. Straw poll. Hands up all those who feel more free now than they did in 1997?

Anyone?

Nope, sorry Jack, I'm afraid you're on your own there.

H/T My friend in the north

Mascot Watch (7) - The 'Iain Dale Gasped' Edition

You'll have noticed that this blog is very quick to laud our esteemed mascot, Philip Davies, when the pearls of freedom-loving wisdom cascade around his public appearances, so as promised, it's only consistent to also report on those - thankfully few - occasions when his views contrast with conventional libertarian thought.

Thursday night at the IEA was one of those times.

Tasked with debating "BIG GOVERNMENT IS WATCHING YOU - The surveillance society and individual freedom", the make-up of the panel suggested that the evening would be a one-sided affair. Davies, however, had other ideas and, to head-shaking and a collective sharp intake of breath from a surprised audience, launched into a passionate defence of four tools of surveillance - CCTV, automatic number plate recognition (ANPR), DNA capture, and body scanners.

Davies argued that when talking of freedom and liberty, many forget that these measures enhance freedom rather than restrict it.

He clutched a ream of printed newspaper reports of violent crimes which were solved due to the availability of CCTV, and contended that the public is offered more freedom from murder, rape and mugging precisely because of the prevalence of cameras. On ANPR, he referred to the murder of Sharon Beshenivsky in his constituency, pointing out that her killers were apprehended while fleeing to London, thanks to ANPR.

He defended DNA capture with reference to the many historical crimes which have now been solved since police began routinely swabbing for DNA. He even professed annoyance that, as a law-abiding citizen, he isn't able to volunteer his own DNA! And on the subject of body scanners, Davies was adamant that the terrible consequences of a potential bomber slipping through security and boarding a plane should trump any embarrassment or privacy issues with such equipment.

As you can imagine, after such a polemic, there were more than a few - Chairman Iain Dale included - whose gobs were well and truly smacked, even if they were generous enough to offer warm applause.

Now, I suppose it's possible that he was assuming an equal and opposite position simply to provide balance to the debate, but his tone didn't support that idea, so one must reasonably surmise that these were, indeed, his sincere beliefs.

And, if taken in isolation, the examples provided by Davies in support of his views are very persuasive. In fact, in a Britain governed by an ideal state, we could accept such an argument without question. However, we are faced with a state which is far from perfect, as Davies himself recognises in many other areas.

The problem, of course, is the inevitable mission creep which always accompanies surveillance measures, and just about every other 'innovative solution' promoted by our government, come to that.

CCTV may very well be useful for the prosecution of murderers, but we know from experience that public officials can't help themselves - before long they're using them to chastise us for minor transgressions. Davies highlighted criminals apprehended by means of ANPR, but their principle use is for harrassing motorists. DNA retention may be useful for solving crime, but the accompanying breakdown of trust between the public and authorities when our presumed innocence is withdrawn is arguably more damaging to society. And while body scanners are good for deterring terrorists, and are relatively new with only fairly superficial abuses so far, you just know that government officials won't hesitate to employ them against the public for trivialities if they feel like it.

It's a matter of trust, and we're all out of it when it comes to our relationship with the state.

They have been stamping on our faces for so long - their abuse of RIPA is an egregious example - that it will be many years before we are able to take their reassurances at face value. If a teen son continually promises to treat your car with respect but always ends up driving it through your flower beds, after a while you stop letting him have the keys no matter how passionate his plea for your trust. Likewise, the state have only themselves to blame for our exasperation and lack of faith in their treatment of us.

Still, Davies's contribution - and Alex Deane's blistering rebuttal - made for a crackling atmosphere and a very entertaining debate. Let's hope the next in the Voices of Freedom series, on Tuesday evening, is as thought-provoking.

If you wish to attend, RSVP contact@forestonline.org or telephone 01223 370156

Damned If You Do ...

From Big Brother Watch. In case you can't read the hand-written note, it says "Please don't remove no smoking sign. Camera watching".


So, let's get this straight ...

... despite the smoking ban being 'hugely popular', this sign has presumably been repeatedly removed. The owner of the premises fears vicious government threats designed to maintain the 'hugely popular' smoking ban, so must employ veiled threats of his own.

And down we spiral.

Did I ever mention that LABOUR'S ban (never forget that) is the most spiteful and divisive in history?

Speed Cameras To Be Abolished

Well, why would GATSOs be required if it was rendered impossible to exceed the speed limit?

Hey, you can call me cynical if you like, but a written parliamentary question to Paul Clark of the DfT suggests we are a fair way down that particular avenue of public control already.

This draft is being tested through pilots, first in Lancashire as part of a Road Safety Partnership Grant-funded project looking at an advisory form of Intelligent Speed Adaptation, and more recently through a second pilot with Greater Manchester, building on work they have started as part of their review of A and B road speed limits. The technical document will be made available to authorities to use following any necessary post-pilot revisions.

'Intelligent Speed Adaptation'. Now there's a phrase which reeks of civil service euphemistic licence, no? Unsurprising, really, considering the quite sinister possibilities of such a system.

Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) is an in-vehicle system that uses information on the position of the vehicle in a network in relation to the speed limit in force at that particular location. ISA can support drivers in helping them to comply with the speed limit everywhere in the network.

Aww, ain't they nice? 'Helping' us to act as they demand again, how very thoughtful.

ISA is a collective term for various systems:

- The open ISA warns the driver (visibly and/or audibly) that the speed limit is being exceeded. The driver him/herself decides whether or not to slow down. This is an informative or advisory system.

- The half-open ISA increases the pressure on the accelerator pedal when the speed limit is exceeded (the 'active accelerator'). Maintaining the same speed is possible, but less comfortable because of the counter pressure.

- The closed ISA limits the speed automatically if the speed limit is exceeded. It is possible to make this system mandatory or voluntary. In the latter case, drivers may choose to switch the system on or off.

The system consists of a GPS device in your car, rather like a SatNav, which sees how fast you are travelling, compares it to the applicable speed limit, and nags you like some electronic mother-in-law.

Nanny right there in the front seat with you. Every time you switch on the ignition. Every day. Perfect, huh?

Now, if anyone can come up with a reasonable argument as to why government - taking into account their track record of imposing mandatory provisions after declaring voluntary ones unacceptable - won't swiftly move to a 'closed' system being compulsory in all new vehicles, then I'd be pleased to offer to sell them a large London monument.

And as it's GPS-based, you can no doubt be tracked in any number of ways into the bargain.

What's not to like ... if you're a hideous, scum-sucking poser of an MP with control freak tendencies (ie., most of them)?

Fatwa Fun

Doesn't this kinda defeat the object?

Airport body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslims say

Saying that body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslim-American groups are supporting a “fatwa” – a religious ruling – that forbids Muslims from going through the scanners at airports.

“It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,” reads the fatwa issued Tuesday. “Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.”

If this ruling is replicated on our side of the pond, the resultant clash between the home office and the politically correct will be interesting.

Still, much ado about nothing really. It's not like any muslim is going to hide a bomb in their pants or anything, now is it?

Helvetica Hysteria

Right. Enough of this work lark, time to knock off and pop up to the smoke for, well, a smoke. And a fair few drinks with like-minded souls, of course.

Just time to highlight a small piece in The Grocer which shows the paranoia which has descended on the new measures to hide tobacco.

One main concern is the "overly prescriptive" regulations on price lists. They must be printed only in black Helvetica font on a white sheet no larger than A4, and contain only brand names, pack sizes and rrps.

All words except the title should be no higher than 4mm, which is right on the minimum threshold recommended for people with sight difficulties by the Royal National Institute of Blind People.

...stores with a large range would have to use a tiny type size.

The printed word larger than 4mm is now a threat to health, apparently.

Hoist By One's Own Retard

When idiotarian control meets intransigent bureaucracy.

29th January

While in Manchester the Home Secretary visited Newall Green High School in Wythenshawe to meet young people who could be some of the first to be able to apply for cards from 2010. Together they discussed how identity cards will help young people strike out on their own by opening their first bank account

4th February

Darren McTeggart tried to use the £30 card to pick up a replacement credit card from a branch of Santander – formerly Abbey – in Manchester, where the scheme was rolled out on a voluntary basis last year.

Mr McTeggart, one of the first people to get the card, said: “They said it was not on their list of approved ID."

Pray tell how someone working in a bank, in Manchester, is apparently oblivious to the huge publicity surrounding the ID card scam scheme. One wonders if they would be as slow on the uptake if Jedward had wandered in to ask for a loan.

This is the problem with a nation dumbed down to the level of self-absorbed, vacant drones, there's always one who will make a flagship policy look an elaborate and expensive farce.

Pffft.

The Gameshow Of Life

This seems very discomforting.

One UK businessman thinks he has come up with a solution by recruiting volunteers to watch live CCTV footage streamed over the web in return for cash prizes.

Businessman Tony Morgan sees his company, Internet Eyes, as the future with an army of volunteer spies monitoring live CCTV footage online and alerting police to any criminal activity they witness.

Their only incentive is a monthly prize of £1,000 for the best crime spotter of the month yet more than 10,000 recruits have already signed up.

There's something screaming at me that the idea of thousands of Big Brother's volunteer electronic curtain-twitchers snooping for the chance of a cash prize is deeply sinister. Probably because it reminds me too much of this.

Tanked Up?

There is something quite unusual going on in Essex.

BMW shame of naked Essex girl

The drunken girl stripped off in the middle of town whilst it was packed with late-night drinkers but she has escaped police action - because no-one complained about her behaviour.

She had already been thrown out of one bar before getting onto a new BMW and flashing her breasts, lifting her skirt and allegedly inviting passers-by to perform a sex act on her.

No, not that. I said unusual.

The scenes in the middle of town were missed by CCTV, police and Army patrols ...

Army patrols? I believe the refrain is "Dude, WTF?".

Were they there to stamp out this sort of behaviour, or to take advantage?

Damned If You Do ...

Fancy a night out in Mansfield? Nah, me neither.

Drinkers in Mansfield are facing random drug tests before being allowed into the town's pubs and clubs.

Nottinghamshire police will take swabs to test for a range of drugs, including cocaine and cannabis, as part of the initiative.

Personally, I'd reply with a firm, but polite, not on your fucking nelly.

People who refuse the tests will be searched.

Quite. Un. Fucking. Believable.

Licensing officer Dougie Gardner said the aim of the scheme was to curb late-night disorder and violence in the town.

Nothing like blowing the cobwebs away of a weekend and forgetting the pressures of this dictatorial country, is there? And that is nothing like ... well, you get the gist.

H/T Man Widdicombe (if he's not on your RSS already, why not?)